The link is to a column in the Atlantic in which the columnist denigrates the GOP for not having a candidate yet.
This is absurd.
If I have the argument right, uniting early around one person with one set of ideas … is superior to listening to many people with many sets of ideas to find those best for oneself and one’s country.
I guess if you believe in big gov and your candidate promises huge gov, then any ideas contrary to that – and to hers – are anathema, but history shows that a marketplace for ideas (which is what the West has been since the Magna Carta) provides better results.
So which party, really, is doing the nation a better service? The party with more candidates. Which party is doing the nation a disservice? The party not providing an alternative to the nation or to their voters.
Why field a bunch of candidates and allow voters to choose between them, when the scions of the party are going to make their own choice regardless of their own voters? That is setting an expectation that you will refuse to meet, which just annoys everyone.
With Hillary and Debbie, Democrats are refraining from setting the expectation that the opinions of their voters matter, and doing so in such a way that the voters really are not aware that they are being manipulated by their own party.
Some of the candidates complaining about the stacked deck are aware – but the party couldn’t care less, and the voters don’t know.
The Democrat Party is a fundamentally anti-democratic party, and thinking otherwise is fantasy.